Southern Baptists Contra Orthodoxy

G.D.O'Bradovich III

January 10, 2017

1

We recently discovered a 75 page document from the Southern Baptist Convention explaining various tactics to “witness” to Orthodox Christians. We were not surprised to learn that one must use Biblical passages to demonstrate the multiple failures of Orthodox profession and practice.

Our initial and subsequent efforts to respond to this document have been relegated to appendix one and appendix two, respectively. We have not systematically addressed the various points this document presented, and acknowledge this deficiency. Therefore, the reader should not understand our response as a coherent apology.

Jean Hardouin accurately observed that the Roman Church did not need to rely upon the alleged writings of the Church Fathers to fulfill its mission. In addition to these atheistic writings, we can state that the Orthodox Church does not need modern appeals to scripture to fulfill its mission. In the histories of both the Roman and Greek churches, tradition existed for several centuries before the recognition of scripture. Unless one were to suggest that the church was not able to fulfill its mission in the first centuries, then one must accept the premise that tradition, and not scripture, allows the Church to fulfill its mission.

If the Gentle Reader would imagine a scenario where all worldwide writings, sacred and profane, disappeared, the Orthodox and Roman churches would continue due to sacred tradition and apostolic succession is one part of that tradition. In our scenario, the various branches of Judaism and Islam would be adversely affected, as both groups rely upon books for their claims, history and subsequent authority. Judaism and Islam could no longer be able to rely upon written testimony to support their claims. In our scenario, evangelicals would also be adversely affected as they must rely upon their Bible and various interpretations, not sacred tradition, for their authority and their mission.

The Orthodox church continues its mission without the modern protestant Bible. While we are accustomed to near universal literacy, as late as the 17th century, less than ten percent of western Europeans could read. Until the late 19th century, the majority of the population of Great Britain were illiterate. We may conclude that the age of printing is the age of literacy is the age of evangelical beliefs and opinions.

Without their Bible, evangelical churches would transform into social clubs, similar to the lodges of the Moose and the Elks. The curious reader may wonder how much time in evangelical churches is allocated to Bible reading compared to the time for Biblical interpretation compared to how much time for social interactions or “fellowship”. We suspect, and would not be surprised to learn, that the time allotted to reading Biblical excerpts in the Orthodox church service is similar to the time spent in evangelical churches.

The Baptist document was critical of the various national Orthodox churches. We suggest that this critical view is due to the church and state being united, hence, evangelical attempts at conversion in Orthodox countries encounter many difficulties that are unimaginable in America. We note that Southern Baptists are distinctly an American creation; their origins are due to their opinion on the issue of slavery. (The northern baptists were opposed to slavery.) The document implied that national churches are not universal churches, whereas the creed explicitly states “We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church”. The contradiction between the modern opinion of Orthodox churches not being a universal church, but the congregation stating the belief in a Catholic church, must be resolved by the reader.

We note that “universal” and “catholic” are understood differently by evangelicals and Orthodoxy. The Catholic wording is a belief that the teachings of the church are the same for all time. Hence, there have been no innovations (priestly celibacy or women priests), no new dogmas (Papal Infallibility), no novel additions (the Bible) to Orthodoxy. It is evident that the teachings or beliefs of the church cannot be extensive, cannot be confusing and to remain unchanged, these beliefs must be simple. We suggest that the average twelve year old could understand all that the Church has taught, teaches, and will teach.

We are cautious when we learn that time is set aside to understand the meaning of a text, especially when the difficulty of a given text rarely exceeds the reading level of an average sixth grader. Since the reading level of the Bible is not aimed at those individuals who are advanced or proficient readers (college and high school), it is evident that the clear meaning of the Biblical text, as a whole, is available to the vast majority of readers and any “interpretation” of the text is less explanation than “This is how we understand the text.”

Although evangelicals explicitly uphold their Bible as their final authority, we suggest that their beliefs are not based on the clear teachings of their Bible, but that their beliefs are based on various agreed upon interpretations of the relevant text. Any contradictions between what evangelicals explicitly state and what they believe must be resolved by the Gentle Reader.We suggest that Baptist efforts to convert Orthodox individuals encounter many difficulties and, without the modern Bible and appeals to its supposed ancient authority, conversion is almost impossible.

According to evangelical interpretations and opinions, Adam was formed as a perfect being. Since evangelicals also claim that Adam and Eve were married, we must conclude that either evangelicals have an odd understanding of marriage or that their understanding of Adam's perfection is possibly incorrect.

The Orthodox understand that Adam was on the path whose goal was a closer union with God.Different opinion alert:Although Adam existed before the foundation of the Church, he was on the path to a closer union with God. One can conclude that this goal of becoming divine was possible without the church, unless one suggests that a church was a church of one. Of course, the formation of Adam occurred before the Incarnation. Since all people seek a closer union with God, this premise suggests that it is possible that some individuals may reach the divine status without the sacraments of the Church. Unlike evangelicals who know who is saved and who is damned, the Orthodox Church has no revelation, and no teaching, concerning the fate for those individuals outside the church.

In conclusion, the individuals who are targeted, whether Orthodox or not, for conversion have only one avenue to resist evangelical attempts.

The supposed authority of their Bible must be continually in the mind of the targeted convert and one should not hesitate to vocalize reservations regarding the origins of their modern Bible, what books comprise their modern Bible and their modern interpretations of their modern Bible.

2

Appendix 2

Upon reflection, the essay did not serve its purpose, however, we were reluctant to delete it. The false start may prove to be of some benefit to the aspiring writer to demonstrate that it is acceptable to discard unworkable writings.

We now realize we were not detached to adequately address the supposed “problems” or shortcomings with Orthodoxy. Our lack of detachment was due to several factors. Firstly, Yours Truly was raised in the Orthodox Church and, secondly, we have critically researched Orthodoxy within historical and philological contexts.

We acknowledge our caution regarding technical jargon, such as “witnessing”, that is common with American evangelical efforts.

We have less animus with efforts to bring the Gospel to heathens, than we do with attempts to convert Christians to an evangelical worldview.

Yours Truly has been the target of multiple conversion attempts. These attempts end in failure, not because my beliefs and opinions are unchangeable in light of new facts and evidence, but because historical facts and evidence are not compatible with modern evangelical beliefs. In essense, protestants must overcome recorded history to convince this researcher regarding their claims.

Even with my plenitude of Occult powers combined with a Tarot deck, I cannot know who will be saved or who will be damned. My ignorance on this topic is shared by the Orthodox Church, and to a lesser extent, the Roman church. The agreement between Orthodoxy and myself is not to be understood as an appeal to, or an acceptance of authority, but is due entirely to my ignorance. Evangelicals claim a certain knowledge, the certainty of salvation and damnation, that is unknown to Orthodoxy.

Evangelicals interpret the formation of Adam as being formed as a perfect man. Orthodoxy teaches that Adam was not formed perfect, he was on the path whose goal is to be closer to God. Anyone who claims that Adam was perfect snd then became less perfect cannot appeal to the text to demonstrate this novel opinion. We acknowledge that the text does not indicate that Adam was formed imperfect, yet this understanding regarding Adam’s imperfection has been consistent Orthodox teaching for several centuries.

Evangelicals take Christian terms that have a long history, but, ingeniously or deceptively assign different definitions to this terminology. Salvation, justification and grace are examples of divergences definitions and meanings between Southern Baptists and Orthodoxy.

Southern Baptists restrict baptism to individuals who have reached the “age of reason”. We note the use of a concept applied to Roman Catholic confirmation, not baptism, is now used by Baptists for baptism. Orthodox Churches practice infant baptism and infant chrismation and communion is given to infants. Clearly, the Orthodox have no tradition regarding individual reasoning for these sacraments.

Being a “Christian”, in the modern understanding, is defined as a belief, not in Christ, but in believing that one is a Christian. Hence, the claim of being a Christian must be honored, even from diverse groups, such as Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. The modern standard of “Christian” is a claim only, no facts are needed to support this claim. Therefore, the historical derivation of the word “Christian” is distinct from, and opposed to, modern claims. Therefore, if we correctly apply the modern word “Christian”, it is appropriate only to describe certain individuals; adherents of the Roman, Greek, Anglican and a few other churches. Therefore, in contradiction to the claim of Baptists, they are not Christians.

Evangelicals are concerned with the salvation of immortal souls, while the goal of the Orthodox is to become divine. Therefore, the explicit goals of protestants and Orthodox are not similar; the goals are different.

The Orthodox view regarding scripture is that even if writings were never authorized by the Church, this absence of scripture would not affect the mission of the Church. We note that the Orthodox Church existed many centuries without scripture. Even if all writings were miraculously raptured, the universal tradition of the Church would remain intact and the Church’s mission would not be interrupted.

Through long and painful experience, we are justifiably cautious when presented with certain claims that contradict facts and other claims that are beyond human reason.

We believe that evangelicals are sincerely motivated, but one can be simultaneously both sincere and wrong. “Wrong” implies an agreed upon standard that deviates from the standard. Therefore, we are reluctant to describe evangelicals as wrong: our modified statement is that evangelicals profess claims that are independent of history and tradition.

As always, the Gentle Reader will reach his informed conclusions.

3

Appendix 2

Gentle Reader, it is unfortunate that Orthodoxy has misunderstood the clear teachings of the Bible for several centuries. It is regrettable that no Orthodox Christian understands Christianity as well as American protestants.

Firstly, there is no singular version of a book that the Orthodox Churches can dogmatically describe as recognised and binding on all the faithful, in the past, the present, and in the future. The Orthodox cannot recognize a Bible today, since this act would be a major innovation and the Orthodox Church would no longer be credible when it declares that it has the fullness of revelation.

Nullifying evangelization attempts of the Orthodox faithful is quite easy, as dialogue is dependent upon agreed facts.

Firstly, there must be agreement to what a Bible is and is not. Should the Bible include the Apocrypha, and if not, why not? As the Apocrypha was included in the King James Bible until the 1840s, this is evidence that books can be removed from the Bible.

The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ is never quoted in the lectionary. We must ask: how recent is this book for the Orthodox to not read from it? When was this book added to Scripture? The statement that only 144,000 male virgins from the tribes of Israel can go to heaven is clear evidence that this book is not Christian and should be relegated to the Old Testament.

Since agreement on the Biblical canon is impossible, further dialog is not possible.

Once protestants agree that the current version of the Bible is THE Bible, then they must explain how they were misguided when they promoted an incorrect Bible from 1524 to the 1840s. Additionally, we would like assurances that future revisions of the current Bible will not be forthcoming.

For the sake of completeness, we note that the tradition of scripture in Orthodoxy is not, nor can be, the final word, as sacred tradition is of equal to authority as scripture. Clearly, no faithful Orthodox Christian would elevate the Bible and disparage tradition.

We are curious as to which Biblical passage Baptists would quote as authorizing changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Sunday is the day of worship based on the authority of the church, as the Seventh Day Adventists know perfectly well.

Baptists can search the Bible for the custom of celebrating the Nativity. The Feast of the Nativity was created by the authority of the Church and decorating evergreen trees is an ancient tradition; the Jehovah Witnesses know these facts perfectly well.

Baptists cannot find authorization for prayers for the dead in their current scripture, as the Apocrypha was removed from the current Bible.

The Bible does not authorize the recognition and veneration of Saints, yet this traditional practice is universal in the Orthodox Church.

Baptists cannot find any Biblical passages that define the nature of Christ as completely man and completely God, this understanding is from church tradition, as Jehovah Witnesses know perfectly well.

Baptists removed certain books from scripture around the time that the Mormons added books. Is Mormonism another revelation of Jesus Christ? If not, why not? Does Mormonism have the fullness of Christian revelation and thereby suggesting the Orthodox Church is deceitful?

Unlike the Roman Catholic, Baptist and Mormon churches, the Orthodox Church has not any further revelations for centuries. What is wrong with the Orthodox Church that it does not change dogma every century and beliefs on a regular basis?

Baptists correctly recognize the existence of Purgatory as a Roman Catholic innovation, yet they believe in at least one other Roman Catholic innovation, the immortal soul.

Why are the Orthodox faithful so ignorant of the truth? Why are they reluctant to accept protestant teachings on the Bible and guaranteed salvation? After, there are a multitude of opinions on salvation, they only need to choose the version that feels right. They just need to get saved so they can avoid the Final Judgement.

It seems that protestants are completely focused on the salvation of the soul, that they forget there will be a bodily resurrection. Protestants know only salvation, not deification, as the goal of humanity. Protestants have a vague idea of the afterlife that they have pieced together from sermons, Biblical passages, and their opinions.​The divide between various protestant opinions and one Orthodox teaching is insurmountable.